6

Today I read the intro to 'A Treatise of Human Nature' by David Hume. I'm somewhat new to reading Philosophical texts and I have never read Hume before. The intro is 1936 words long. I took decent notes and made flash cards for some words and ideas in the text that I wanted to later commit to memory. I feel that I could write an accurate and thorough summary of the chapter relative to my overall knowledge in the field. This took me about 1 hour and 45 minutes. Is this an acceptable pace for university study? Should I be deliberately working to move faster?

Joe Cannatti
  • 283
  • 1
  • 5
  • 1
    Somewhat borderline as to whether this is a good fit for the site; it's fairly localized and not directly related to philosophy per se... I'll defer to the community for now. – stoicfury Jan 29 '12 at 05:28
  • 1
    You should skim. Philosophy isn't mathematics or mathematical physics, it does not deserve a close reading--- there isn't enough idea-density there. – Ron Maimon Apr 15 '12 at 01:01
  • 1
    @RonMaimon. Tell that to Einstein. He credited Hume and Mach (but mostly Hume) with helping him come up with the theory of special relativity. Einstein was extraordinarily well read in philosophy. Perhaps skimming is apt for those less serious students of the arts and sciences; but for those who desire to understand our intellectual history, reading is, indeed, a requisite. Ideas tend to have a pretty powerful influence, and, more often than not, come from without. – Jon Jul 18 '13 at 23:46
  • @Jon: Einstein didn't read Hume so much (although Hume isn't bad compared to other philosophers), he read Kant and mostly Mach, and Mach is a physicist, first and foremost. But the big inspiration was Boltzmann and the thermodynamics folks, and Poincare's 1902 treatise for special relativity. He was indeed pretty well read in philosophy. That's one of his few flaws. It was understandable before the physics culture he created gave the world something better. Ideas don't come from without, they come from within, or they are social garbage. – Ron Maimon Jul 24 '13 at 18:23
  • @RonMaimon. I wasn't looking for clarification. He did read Hume, and credited Hume with his coming up with special relativity: see Einstein's Relativity: the Special and General Theory where he explicitly tells of Hume's impact on his ideas; see any biography on Einstein for further mentions of it. Your claim that ideas "don't come from without, they come from within, or they are social garbage" is entirely unsupported by logic, history, or common sense, as well as being nonsense (scientifically and philosophically speaking, that is). – Jon Jul 25 '13 at 00:48
  • No, he didn't credit hume in this text, it is not there. I read the entire text of Einstein's "Relativity: the Special and General Theory" many times, and you are making shit up. There is no mention of Hume anywhere. There is no mention of any philosopher in that text. I don't care whether you think my claim about original ideas is supported, it is true, as I have had some ideas, and I know how the process works in detail. You sit and think, for years, and sort out stuff you are confused about step by step, until you have an original contribution. – Ron Maimon Jul 29 '13 at 12:11
  • 3
    Hello @RonMaimon. You are right in stating that Hume isn't mentioned in Einstein's Relativity: the Special and General Theory, but Jon is essentially rephrasing Einstein's quote, which can be found in a letter of December 14, 1915, to Moritz Schlick (Papers, A, Vol. 8A, Doc. 165): "Also you have correctly seen that this line of thought was of great influence on my efforts and indeed E. Mach and still much more Hume, whose treatise on understanding I studied with eagerness and admiration shortly before finding relativity theory." –  Mar 21 '15 at 00:45
  • 3
    Also, I believe that your statement means that all ideas must be processed and understood within rather than merely accepted, otherwise it is social garbage. Is that what you mean? Thanks, @RonMaimon –  Mar 21 '15 at 00:48
  • @Andy: I accept that you are probably right, I read some of the letters of that era by random chance, saw no mention of Hume, but I did not read them all, and this is definitely consistent with his other reading list of the era. Positivism is the way he was able to reject ether thinking and redo everything from scratch. But Mach's positivism, while original, is foreshadowed in Hume to some extent. The credit here depends, but I would go by the mathematical text rather than the philosophical text, although this is philosophy here. Should I delete the comment? I thought the claim was propaganda. – Ron Maimon Mar 26 '15 at 05:24
  • @Andy: Yeah, your short comment is what I meant. I should apologize to Jon. – Ron Maimon Mar 26 '15 at 05:26
  • @Jon: Sorry, you had the sentiment right, only the source was off. My mistake. I read the published works, but not even a majority of the letters. – Ron Maimon Mar 26 '15 at 05:27

2 Answers2

10

Should I be deliberately working to move faster?

No. You should be deliberately working to move slower.

Nietzsche called himself "a teacher of slow reading" and in many ways philosophy is the art of reading slowly.

Take as long as you need to understand the text. Then, take the time you need to understand it deeper.

Serious texts take a lifetime to read.

Michael Dorfman
  • 23,485
  • 1
  • 45
  • 71
  • 5
    This, +1. Great philosophy demands to be read lento, with pauses for reflection, review and rumination – Joseph Weissman Jan 29 '12 at 14:50
  • Of course living a Life makes one understand them faster. Philosophers who spend all life locked with books will never understand them. – Rodrigo Jan 27 '15 at 21:01
5

This is not the right way you should be approaching it. Reading philosophy is not a race; people have their own paces and that's totally fine. The most important thing is that you understand the text, and to that extent you might consider touching base with professors or knowledgeable peers about some of the concepts you've read about. Hume is not known to be particularly hard to digest, but some concepts require a bit of context and insight into the jargon of the old days. Bottom line: don't worry about your speed, focus on comprehension.

As always, we'll be here to answer any questions you may have, and chat is always available if you want to discuss ideas as well. :)

p.s. your pace is fine. You will find that it will improve over time as you read more, understand different authors writing styles, and understand more concepts in philosophy.

stoicfury
  • 11,658
  • 7
  • 43
  • 79